The benefit we other people receive is getting to play the mod. An exercise in worldbuilding is not a toolset, it is a construct that has to follow its own internal rules -a canon - in order to maintain its integrity.
Your "integrity" is a fabrication. An exercise in worldbuilding is not a toolset, true, but a process. And what it produces are ideas. After the End goes quite a bit further than that and also creates code and things that have a manner of functional purpose. Those things have something in common with the ideas in that they exist and thus have the potential to be used.
When anyone can decide to change the rules, there are no longer any rules.
There weren't any in the first place.
The construct is reduced to a set of events and character images, which to my knowledge was never the intention of the mod.
I'm reasonably certain it's at least part of the point, because you'll notice that the mod does contain quite a few events and character images. Whether they were a "point" is itself a rather pointless thing to bring up though; they exist even if as you suppose they were brought into existence and remain in the mod purely by accident.
It wasn't titled 'After The End - A Collection of Post-Apocalyptic-Themed Mod-Building Tools.'
What relevence does a title have? The mod is not atomic, it contains many parts that can be enjoyed as a whole, and it can be split, and because humans are versatile and versatile parts could be used and recombined in different ways. Is this the main intended purpose of the mod? No. It's not optimized for that. And you'll note that most people don't use it that way. That doesn't mean it somehow lacks the potential to be used that way. And it doesn't mean that someone enjoying the mod in a manner other than the predominant one is somehow inherently harmful to anyone.
AtE allows players to create a story starting from a specific pre-defined point. That point should be under the control of the creators of the mod. They did the work, they should have that power.
They did in fact set a start point in the mod. I wouldn't be surprised if, were it practically feasible, they'd be perfectly happy to let us pick from a quite wide range of times though. What relevance does the number of bookmarks in the mod have to anything?
It being on the internet doesn't make it 'ours.' It's 'theirs.' They're letting us play with it, and that is nice of them. The least we can do is be considerate of what is considered 'official' when it comes to their creation. If other people have great ideas, then by all means they should make their own mods. But they are not entitled to co-opt other people's great ideas just because they viewed them via an internet connection.
An idea isn't something for which co-opting is even a possible descriptor. If someone uses an idea and it happens to differ from the way it's used in AtE, does that somehow permute your experience in the game? If the Europe mod were to add dragons to the game, does that mean suddenly there's dragons in AtE? Of course not, an idea lives in the minds of people and propagates through other minds, but in each mind it exists as a separate instance. Just like the files of a game. Modifying one instance has no effect on the work of the devs, which is independent of derivatives except to whatever point they may or (more likely, given in-thread statements) may not choose to take ideas from those derivatives themselves.
It is a demonstrable hindrance - please refer to the example I provided in my previous post. The creators of the mod should not have to double-check with creators of derivative work when they want to make a decision about their own creation. If you want creative control of something, then create it. That is neither petty, pointless, nor misguided. It is fair.
The example in your previous post is as inane as the philosophy you intend to prove with it, but I went ahead and added an even more bizarre one here to help illustrate how divorced from reality it really is. Of course the creators of one instance (in many forms of development this might be called a fork, though that generally has a more specific meaning and would be applied in a largely metaphorical sense here) have no obligation to check with anyone else before checking their own. They could choose to, of course, but have clearly stated that they won't and that choice is not only their inherent prerogative but a more default option than choosing to explicitly collaborate with a derivative. They maintain creative control over their own work – they can make those decisionds, and any other which do apply solely to their own work. Creative control does not entail controlling others to prevent creation. That "right", which you suppose to be inalienable, has never existed and the closest legal analogue, copyright, only prevents formal publication and profit from the ideas of another, and is intended purely to safeguard financial returns on innovation and thus encourage investment in such things. It is thus irrelevant to non-fiscal projects such as this.
It's cool, the one thing that was iffy was just saying "After the End" when we haven't agreed to coordinate worldbuilding. That got us a little agitated, but that's well sorted out now, and now it seems there's a philisophical discussion of ownership and creation in the digital age going on.
If you feel that it's too great and too long-lived a divergence from the intended topic of the thread, let me know. I'll drop it and/or delete posts at your discretion.